Immunologists Take Home Nobel

The Nobel Assembly announced today that three researchers in the field of immunology will share the 2011 Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

By Rachel Nuwer | October 3, 2011

A dendritic cellFLICKR, AJC1

Today’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine honors work in immunology that provides new avenues for prevention and therapy against infections, cancer, and inflammatory disease.

The Prize is shared by three researchers who have “revolutionized our understanding of the immune system” by discovering the “gatekeepers” of this integral defense mechanism, according to the Nobel Assembly’s press release.

Jules Hoffmann, a Luxembourgian based at the University of Strasbourg in France, and Bruce Beutler, an American at Scripps Research Institute in California, share half of the award for discovering receptor proteins that recognize microbes and activate innate immunity. Ralph Steinman, a Canadian cell biologist at Rockefeller University, took the other half of the award for first describing the immune system’s dendritic cells and their role in activating and regulating adaptive immunity, the later stage of immune response responsible for clearing microorganisms from the body. Sadly, Steinman passed away last Friday (September 30), before he got word of his crowning achievement.

Steinman’s “greatest contribution was that he himself really generated the field of dendritic cell biology,” Gerold Schuler, head of the department of dermatology at the University Hospital Erlangen in Germany and Steinman’s former post-doc, told The Scientist in an email. Schuler says there is “no doubt” that Steinman’s work was worthy of a Nobel. The insights Steinman made into dendritic cell biology “are now crucial to understanding and fighting diseases, notably for designing better vaccines,” said Schuler.

Jules A. Hoffman

NOBELPRIZE.ORG

Hoffmann and Beutler’s work focuses on the first line of defense that destroys invading microbes and triggers inflammation to ward off bacterial, viral, or fungal enemies. In 1996 Hoffmann and colleagues made a pioneering discovery while investigating Drosophila with different mutations in Toll, a gene associated with embryonic development. When the mutant flies were infected with bacteria or fungi, Hoffmann noticed that they could not mount an adequate immune defense, and quickly died as a result. His observations led him to conclude that the Toll gene product helped sense pathogenic microorganisms and that Toll activation was needed in order to mount defense against the microbial invaders.

In 1998, Beutler extended his findings to mammals. While searching for receptors related to the bacterial product lipopolysaccharide (LPS) that causes septic shock, a potentially fatal over-stimulation of the immune system, Beutler and his colleagues observed that mice with mutations in a gene quite similar to that in the fruit fly’s Toll gene were resistant to shock. The gene turned out to encode the Toll-like LPS receptor, which binds bacterial LPS, resulting in the initiation of an innate immune response. In excess, however, that inflammation can lead to septic shock. Mice with mutant LPS receptors failed to bind LPS and thus never succumbed to shock.

Bruce A. Beutler

NOBELPRIZE.ORG

Beutler’s work is a rare example of truly exploratory research, said Alexander Poltorak, a mouse geneticist at Tufts University and the lead author on Beutler’s groundbreaking 1998 Science paper describing LPS signaling and gene mutations. “We didn’t have any hypothesis, and that’s the beauty of it,” said Poltorak, a former postdoc in Beutler’s lab. Beutler “absolutely” deserves the Nobel for the research, he added, noting the many subsequent discoveries made possible by Beutler’s work. In the past 12 years, for example, scientists have reported about a dozen discoveries of various Toll-like receptors in humans and mice, each of which recognizes certain types of microbial molecules. Mutations in any of these receptors can increase the risk of infections or chronic inflammatory disease.

Steinman’s portion of this year’s Nobel focuses on a different part of the immune system—adaptive immunity, which occurs when microorganisms make it through innate immunity’s first line of defense. The adaptive immune system involves the production of antibodies and killer cells that seek out and destroy infected cells. The adaptive immune system stores immunologic memory for rapid defense mobilization if the same microbes invade in the future.

In 1973, Steinman discovered a new immune cell type present in tissues in contact with the external environment, like skin, that he coined the dendritic cell. He showed in cell culture experiments that the presence of dendritic cells elicited in vivid T cell response to foreign substances, indicating their importance in the adaptive immune response. At first, these findings were met with skepticism by the scientific community, but Steinman’s follow-up work put any remaining doubts to rest, conclusively demonstrating that dendritic cells have a unique capacity for T cell activation and play a key role “in conducting the immune orchestra,” Schuler said.

Ralph M. Steinman

NOBELPRIZE.ORG

Steinman “was stubborn and brave enough to continue working on dendritic cells even though his work was largely ignored—to say the least—for the first 10 years,” said Schuler, who co-authored Steinman’s description of dendritic cell maturation first published in the Journal of Experimental Medicine in 1985. The work led to “an explosion” of research in the field of dendritic cells, Schuler added, and eventually brought the discovery into the clinic.

In fact, Steinman’s own life was extended using a dendritic cell-based immunotheraphy of his own design. But the immunologist finally lost his battle with pancreatic cancer last week, just three days before his Nobel achievement was announced. “We are so touched that our father’s many years of hard work are being recognized with a Nobel Prize,” said Steinman’s daughter Alexis in a statement issued by Rockefeller University. “He devoted his life to his work and his family, and he would be truly honored,” she said.

“Ralph has changed my life in many ways,” Schuler said of his former mentor. “[He was a] deeply caring and understanding human being.... I am very sad that he passed away, notably without having the chance to enjoy becoming a Nobel Laureate.”

Comments

Drosophilist:Â I respectfully disagree.Â Kathryn Anderson is a fine developmental biologist, and her work with Drosophila developmental genetics is well known to developmental biologists.Â Furthermore, her work on Drosophila developmental biology (including Toll) certainly has some potential medical significance for the field of human developmentalÂ abnormalities, although the links have not really been made yet.Â However, her laboratory has NOT explored, nor exploited, the immunological aspects of Toll.Â In no way could she be considered to have contributed to the field of immunology, and she would certainly agree with this statement.Â Therefore I do not understand why you think that she deserves "the third part" of a prize in Medicine or Physiology that is being awarded specifically for important breakthroughs in immunology.Â I can think of several extremely fine immunologists whose work could be considered Nobel-worthy who have not yet received the prize.Â And, as for drosophila developmental genetics, I fear that the prize awarded some years ago to Kathryn's mentor, Christiane NÃ¼sslein-Volhard (along with NÃ¼sslein-Volhard's collaborator Eric Â Wieschaus) will serve for some time to come as the standard of innovation in the field by which future potential Nobelists in that area of research will be judged.Â Perhaps Dr. Anderson herself might even agree with that statement.Â

I had always understood that the prizes could not be "awarded" posthumously.Â However, in Ralph's case, his passing occurred so shortly before the "announcement" of the prizes (3 days) that it is most likely that the actual "awarding" of the prize to him by the committee took place while he was still alive.Â Perhaps that is the technicality that allows the prize to be awarded to him even now.Â

My only beef with the committee is that the incredible value of Ralph's initially-highly-controversial ("ignored") work has been known and understood for many years, and also his battle with cancer, so WHY DID IT TAKE THE COMMITTEE SO LONG TO GIVE HIM HIS PRIZE?Â Wouldn't it have been nice for him to be able to accept the prize in person?Â

I have full respect for Prof. Steinman's contribution to the understanding of immunology, especially from a very "odd" perspective that was even ignored by the mainstream for decade(s).Â It is truly a double tragedy that not only his discovery was recognized late but also his Nobel Prize came too late.Â I would like Nobel Assembly to keep the prize for him if the rule can also be changed.Â Otherwise, I would suggest the Nobel Assembly set up a special award for Prof. Steinman and fill in Prof. Tu for the deceased laureate so that the regulation remains unbroken if that was the will of Nobel.Let us do a better job to earlier recognize those truly deserving the Nobel Prize and give them the award as early as possible.By the way, why wouldn't the Nobel Assembly pay more close attention to Prof. Steinman's health and thus even make the announcement earlier so that he can hear it?

Congratulations to Ralph and his family and also so sorry for his death.My daugther Jennifer Finke Dwyer worked with him for 4 years at Rockfeller and she liked him very much and was very pround of himI am her mother,my name is Iza.Jennifer died in an accident in Omaha-NE on the 21 of june 2009.Be strong and i am trying.A kiss for his family.

I guess my beef is more about how this year's prize was defined.Â Often times these selection committees lump loosely related scientific discoveries into a common theme for the purpose of spreading out such prestigious prizes as thinly as possible.Â For example, while there were some similarities between Ed Lewis's and N-V & W's Nobel prize garnering discoveries in Drosophila developmental genetics, there were fundamental differences that in my view diluted the recognition of both achievements.Â The same applies here.Â Nobody disputes Steinman's contribution to immunology.Â But the TLR pathways have completely redefined and broken open the field of innate immunity, and Kathryn's work on a canonical TLR signaling pathway, albeit not in an immunologic context, was a critical contribution that in my view deserves equal credit.Â Others??

Drosophilist:Â I respectfully disagree.Â Kathryn Anderson is a fine developmental biologist, and her work with Drosophila developmental genetics is well known to developmental biologists.Â Furthermore, her work on Drosophila developmental biology (including Toll) certainly has some potential medical significance for the field of human developmentalÂ abnormalities, although the links have not really been made yet.Â However, her laboratory has NOT explored, nor exploited, the immunological aspects of Toll.Â In no way could she be considered to have contributed to the field of immunology, and she would certainly agree with this statement.Â Therefore I do not understand why you think that she deserves "the third part" of a prize in Medicine or Physiology that is being awarded specifically for important breakthroughs in immunology.Â I can think of several extremely fine immunologists whose work could be considered Nobel-worthy who have not yet received the prize.Â And, as for drosophila developmental genetics, I fear that the prize awarded some years ago to Kathryn's mentor, Christiane NÃ¼sslein-Volhard (along with NÃ¼sslein-Volhard's collaborator Eric Â Wieschaus) will serve for some time to come as the standard of innovation in the field by which future potential Nobelists in that area of research will be judged.Â Perhaps Dr. Anderson herself might even agree with that statement.Â

I had always understood that the prizes could not be "awarded" posthumously.Â However, in Ralph's case, his passing occurred so shortly before the "announcement" of the prizes (3 days) that it is most likely that the actual "awarding" of the prize to him by the committee took place while he was still alive.Â Perhaps that is the technicality that allows the prize to be awarded to him even now.Â

My only beef with the committee is that the incredible value of Ralph's initially-highly-controversial ("ignored") work has been known and understood for many years, and also his battle with cancer, so WHY DID IT TAKE THE COMMITTEE SO LONG TO GIVE HIM HIS PRIZE?Â Wouldn't it have been nice for him to be able to accept the prize in person?Â

I guess my beef is more about how this year's prize was defined.Â Often times these selection committees lump loosely related scientific discoveries into a common theme for the purpose of spreading out such prestigious prizes as thinly as possible.Â For example, while there were some similarities between Ed Lewis's and N-V & W's Nobel prize garnering discoveries in Drosophila developmental genetics, there were fundamental differences that in my view diluted the recognition of both achievements.Â The same applies here.Â Nobody disputes Steinman's contribution to immunology.Â But the TLR pathways have completely redefined and broken open the field of innate immunity, and Kathryn's work on a canonical TLR signaling pathway, albeit not in an immunologic context, was a critical contribution that in my view deserves equal credit.Â Others??

I have full respect for Prof. Steinman's contribution to the understanding of immunology, especially from a very "odd" perspective that was even ignored by the mainstream for decade(s).Â It is truly a double tragedy that not only his discovery was recognized late but also his Nobel Prize came too late.Â I would like Nobel Assembly to keep the prize for him if the rule can also be changed.Â Otherwise, I would suggest the Nobel Assembly set up a special award for Prof. Steinman and fill in Prof. Tu for the deceased laureate so that the regulation remains unbroken if that was the will of Nobel.Let us do a better job to earlier recognize those truly deserving the Nobel Prize and give them the award as early as possible.By the way, why wouldn't the Nobel Assembly pay more close attention to Prof. Steinman's health and thus even make the announcement earlier so that he can hear it?

I guess my beef is more about how this year's prize was defined.Â Often times these selection committees lump loosely related scientific discoveries into a common theme for the purpose of spreading out such prestigious prizes as thinly as possible.Â For example, while there were some similarities between Ed Lewis's and N-V & W's Nobel prize garnering discoveries in Drosophila developmental genetics, there were fundamental differences that in my view diluted the recognition of both achievements.Â The same applies here.Â Nobody disputes Steinman's contribution to immunology.Â But the TLR pathways have completely redefined and broken open the field of innate immunity, and Kathryn's work on a canonical TLR signaling pathway, albeit not in an immunologic context, was a critical contribution that in my view deserves equal credit.Â Others??

I have full respect for Prof. Steinman's contribution to the understanding of immunology, especially from a very "odd" perspective that was even ignored by the mainstream for decade(s).Â It is truly a double tragedy that not only his discovery was recognized late but also his Nobel Prize came too late.Â I would like Nobel Assembly to keep the prize for him if the rule can also be changed.Â Otherwise, I would suggest the Nobel Assembly set up a special award for Prof. Steinman and fill in Prof. Tu for the deceased laureate so that the regulation remains unbroken if that was the will of Nobel.Let us do a better job to earlier recognize those truly deserving the Nobel Prize and give them the award as early as possible.By the way, why wouldn't the Nobel Assembly pay more close attention to Prof. Steinman's health and thus even make the announcement earlier so that he can hear it?

Congratulations to Ralph and his family and also so sorry for his death.My daugther Jennifer Finke Dwyer worked with him for 4 years at Rockfeller and she liked him very much and was very pround of himI am her mother,my name is Iza.Jennifer died in an accident in Omaha-NE on the 21 of june 2009.Be strong and i am trying.A kiss for his family.

Congratulations to Ralph and his family and also so sorry for his death.My daugther Jennifer Finke Dwyer worked with him for 4 years at Rockfeller and she liked him very much and was very pround of himI am her mother,my name is Iza.Jennifer died in an accident in Omaha-NE on the 21 of june 2009.Be strong and i am trying.A kiss for his family.

Drosophilist:Â I respectfully disagree.Â Kathryn Anderson is a fine developmental biologist, and her work with Drosophila developmental genetics is well known to developmental biologists.Â Furthermore, her work on Drosophila developmental biology (including Toll) certainly has some potential medical significance for the field of human developmentalÂ abnormalities, although the links have not really been made yet.Â However, her laboratory has NOT explored, nor exploited, the immunological aspects of Toll.Â In no way could she be considered to have contributed to the field of immunology, and she would certainly agree with this statement.Â Therefore I do not understand why you think that she deserves "the third part" of a prize in Medicine or Physiology that is being awarded specifically for important breakthroughs in immunology.Â I can think of several extremely fine immunologists whose work could be considered Nobel-worthy who have not yet received the prize.Â And, as for drosophila developmental genetics, I fear that the prize awarded some years ago to Kathryn's mentor, Christiane NÃ¼sslein-Volhard (along with NÃ¼sslein-Volhard's collaborator Eric Â Wieschaus) will serve for some time to come as the standard of innovation in the field by which future potential Nobelists in that area of research will be judged.Â Perhaps Dr. Anderson herself might even agree with that statement.Â

I had always understood that the prizes could not be "awarded" posthumously.Â However, in Ralph's case, his passing occurred so shortly before the "announcement" of the prizes (3 days) that it is most likely that the actual "awarding" of the prize to him by the committee took place while he was still alive.Â Perhaps that is the technicality that allows the prize to be awarded to him even now.Â

My only beef with the committee is that the incredible value of Ralph's initially-highly-controversial ("ignored") work has been known and understood for many years, and also his battle with cancer, so WHY DID IT TAKE THE COMMITTEE SO LONG TO GIVE HIM HIS PRIZE?Â Wouldn't it have been nice for him to be able to accept the prize in person?Â

It is shocking that Ralph M. Steinman passed away before announcement of Nobel Award for his worthy contribution in the field of Immunology,he will always be honoured for his research work and finding for fighting with diseases like cancer.All three Scietist deserve congratulation and appreciation

It is shocking that Ralph M. Steinman passed away before announcement of Nobel Award for his worthy contribution in the field of Immunology,he will always be honoured for his research work and finding for fighting with diseases like cancer.All three Scietist deserve congratulation and appreciation

A Hearty Congratulation to Dr.Steinmen, Dr.Beutler and Dr.Hoffmann Sir for their nobel work in immunology, one of my favourite fields and I wantedÂ to expressÂ my sincere condolences to his excellency Dr. Steinmen Sir. I do not think now it would hardly matter on what steps committee will take to award posthumously, because his nobel deed lifted him already above the nobel prize . He would be an Ideal in scientific community for young researchers like me for his perseverence, conviction and trust on his work irrespective to world ignorence. Though he has left, heÂ is immortalÂ by his work.Â In my view he is Legend.Â

A Hearty Congratulation to Dr.Steinmen, Dr.Beutler and Dr.Hoffmann Sir for their nobel work in immunology, one of my favourite fields and I wantedÂ to expressÂ my sincere condolences to his excellency Dr. Steinmen Sir. I do not think now it would hardly matter on what steps committee will take to award posthumously, because his nobel deed lifted him already above the nobel prize . He would be an Ideal in scientific community for young researchers like me for his perseverence, conviction and trust on his work irrespective to world ignorence. Though he has left, heÂ is immortalÂ by his work.Â In my view he is Legend.Â

I have said on many occasions that scientists, generally, have a bad PR image.Â The stereotype is often because of, rather than in spite of, the way some so-called "science writers" write.Â The is especially true of writers who perceive themselves to be "defenders" of science and scientists, but who unwittingly, intentionally or naively establish charicatures that are as bad as, or worse than, the unwitting presumptions of non-science-literate public.

The author of this article, in writing, â€œ[He was a] deeply caring and understanding human beingâ€¦." does something very few self-styled "defenders" of the image of science and scientists do: he evokes an image of a noble, caring, hard working devotee to seeking answers to vital questions. In doing so, he evokes for me the real knowledge I personally have of REAL individuals I have known, in family and out, who are, indeed, noble, responsible, caring people and not at all the kind of stereotype know-it-all, egotistical egg-head, out-of-touch-with-the-ordinary-people smartass that some would be "defenders" of scientists evoke, when they write for non-science-literate public media.

Let me applaude the writer of this article for allowing a reader a different, possibly more realistic view.

(Oh, and let me concede that some scientist are jackasses and social misfits. I'm just saying those are the exception by far, and should not be allowed to be turned by writers of pop science articles into an occupational stereotype in the public's eyes.

I have said on many occasions that scientists, generally, have a bad PR image.Â The stereotype is often because of, rather than in spite of, the way some so-called "science writers" write.Â The is especially true of writers who perceive themselves to be "defenders" of science and scientists, but who unwittingly, intentionally or naively establish charicatures that are as bad as, or worse than, the unwitting presumptions of non-science-literate public.

The author of this article, in writing, â€œ[He was a] deeply caring and understanding human beingâ€¦." does something very few self-styled "defenders" of the image of science and scientists do: he evokes an image of a noble, caring, hard working devotee to seeking answers to vital questions. In doing so, he evokes for me the real knowledge I personally have of REAL individuals I have known, in family and out, who are, indeed, noble, responsible, caring people and not at all the kind of stereotype know-it-all, egotistical egg-head, out-of-touch-with-the-ordinary-people smartass that some would be "defenders" of scientists evoke, when they write for non-science-literate public media.

Let me applaude the writer of this article for allowing a reader a different, possibly more realistic view.

(Oh, and let me concede that some scientist are jackasses and social misfits. I'm just saying those are the exception by far, and should not be allowed to be turned by writers of pop science articles into an occupational stereotype in the public's eyes.

A Hearty Congratulation to Dr.Steinmen, Dr.Beutler and Dr.Hoffmann Sir for their nobel work in immunology, one of my favourite fields and I wantedÂ to expressÂ my sincere condolences to his excellency Dr. Steinmen Sir. I do not think now it would hardly matter on what steps committee will take to award posthumously, because his nobel deed lifted him already above the nobel prize . He would be an Ideal in scientific community for young researchers like me for his perseverence, conviction and trust on his work irrespective to world ignorence. Though he has left, heÂ is immortalÂ by his work.Â In my view he is Legend.Â

It is shocking that Ralph M. Steinman passed away before announcement of Nobel Award for his worthy contribution in the field of Immunology,he will always be honoured for his research work and finding for fighting with diseases like cancer.All three Scietist deserve congratulation and appreciation

I have said on many occasions that scientists, generally, have a bad PR image.Â The stereotype is often because of, rather than in spite of, the way some so-called "science writers" write.Â The is especially true of writers who perceive themselves to be "defenders" of science and scientists, but who unwittingly, intentionally or naively establish charicatures that are as bad as, or worse than, the unwitting presumptions of non-science-literate public.

The author of this article, in writing, â€œ[He was a] deeply caring and understanding human beingâ€¦." does something very few self-styled "defenders" of the image of science and scientists do: he evokes an image of a noble, caring, hard working devotee to seeking answers to vital questions. In doing so, he evokes for me the real knowledge I personally have of REAL individuals I have known, in family and out, who are, indeed, noble, responsible, caring people and not at all the kind of stereotype know-it-all, egotistical egg-head, out-of-touch-with-the-ordinary-people smartass that some would be "defenders" of scientists evoke, when they write for non-science-literate public media.

Let me applaude the writer of this article for allowing a reader a different, possibly more realistic view.

(Oh, and let me concede that some scientist are jackasses and social misfits. I'm just saying those are the exception by far, and should not be allowed to be turned by writers of pop science articles into an occupational stereotype in the public's eyes.

Dr Ralph Steinman has been given Nobel (2011 Medicine)Â for his work onÂ self-therapy with dendritic cell product. He is also considered to be the discoverer of dendritic cells in 1973 and the terminology of "dendritic" cells is ascribed to him. There is no truth eitherÂ in his discovery of the term "dendritic cells" or on his contribution toÂ the role of dendritic cells in the immune system.

Dendritic cells were already known in the literature. Scientists never bothered to read earlier publications. [For example White RG, French VI and Stark JM (1970) A study of the localisation of a protein antigen in the chicken spleen and its relation to the formation of germinal centres. J Medical Microbiology 3, (No1 ) 65-83 clearly mentioned about the dendritic cells and documented cellular migration of antigen-bearing "dendritic cells" in the chicken spleen]. Professor White's team in Glasgow have clearly observed and described the role of dendritic cells in conveying antigens to the immune system prior to May 1969Â and also showed that as early as 6 days after immunization all antigen-bearing cellsÂ enlarged outlines of germinal centres.

This paper has more information about dendritic cells.Â Â The scientific work on dendritic cells was carried out by Prof White's group at University of Glasgow earlier than May 1969. ThisÂ point isÂ based on the date of their submission of theirÂ manuscript (May 1969).

In conclusion Dr SteinmanÂ should not be considered as the" inventor" of the term "dendritic cells" and also he is not the pioneer in describing the role of dendritic cells in the immune system.Â Scientists should clealry understand the pioneer contirbution done by earlier researchersÂ they Â should be credited for their original observation.

Dr Ralph Steinman has been given Nobel (2011 Medicine)Â for his work onÂ self-therapy with dendritic cell product. He is also considered to be the discoverer of dendritic cells in 1973 and the terminology of "dendritic" cells is ascribed to him. There is no truth eitherÂ in his discovery of the term "dendritic cells" or on his contribution toÂ the role of dendritic cells in the immune system.

Dendritic cells were already known in the literature. Scientists never bothered to read earlier publications. [For example White RG, French VI and Stark JM (1970) A study of the localisation of a protein antigen in the chicken spleen and its relation to the formation of germinal centres. J Medical Microbiology 3, (No1 ) 65-83 clearly mentioned about the dendritic cells and documented cellular migration of antigen-bearing "dendritic cells" in the chicken spleen]. Professor White's team in Glasgow have clearly observed and described the role of dendritic cells in conveying antigens to the immune system prior to May 1969Â and also showed that as early as 6 days after immunization all antigen-bearing cellsÂ enlarged outlines of germinal centres.

This paper has more information about dendritic cells.Â Â The scientific work on dendritic cells was carried out by Prof White's group at University of Glasgow earlier than May 1969. ThisÂ point isÂ based on the date of their submission of theirÂ manuscript (May 1969).

In conclusion Dr SteinmanÂ should not be considered as the" inventor" of the term "dendritic cells" and also he is not the pioneer in describing the role of dendritic cells in the immune system.Â Scientists should clealry understand the pioneer contirbution done by earlier researchersÂ they Â should be credited for their original observation.

Dr Ralph Steinman has been given Nobel (2011 Medicine)Â for his work onÂ self-therapy with dendritic cell product. He is also considered to be the discoverer of dendritic cells in 1973 and the terminology of "dendritic" cells is ascribed to him. There is no truth eitherÂ in his discovery of the term "dendritic cells" or on his contribution toÂ the role of dendritic cells in the immune system.

Dendritic cells were already known in the literature. Scientists never bothered to read earlier publications. [For example White RG, French VI and Stark JM (1970) A study of the localisation of a protein antigen in the chicken spleen and its relation to the formation of germinal centres. J Medical Microbiology 3, (No1 ) 65-83 clearly mentioned about the dendritic cells and documented cellular migration of antigen-bearing "dendritic cells" in the chicken spleen]. Professor White's team in Glasgow have clearly observed and described the role of dendritic cells in conveying antigens to the immune system prior to May 1969Â and also showed that as early as 6 days after immunization all antigen-bearing cellsÂ enlarged outlines of germinal centres.

This paper has more information about dendritic cells.Â Â The scientific work on dendritic cells was carried out by Prof White's group at University of Glasgow earlier than May 1969. ThisÂ point isÂ based on the date of their submission of theirÂ manuscript (May 1969).

In conclusion Dr SteinmanÂ should not be considered as the" inventor" of the term "dendritic cells" and also he is not the pioneer in describing the role of dendritic cells in the immune system.Â Scientists should clealry understand the pioneer contirbution done by earlier researchersÂ they Â should be credited for their original observation.

With my wife suffering from celiac disease and my dog having regular skin allergies that require cortisone I understand how important this fledgling research is to everyone. It is great that such research can exist in such tough financial times.

With my wife suffering from celiac disease and my dog having regular skin allergies that require cortisone I understand how important this fledgling research is to everyone. It is great that such research can exist in such tough financial times.

With my wife suffering from celiac disease and my dog having regular skin allergies that require cortisone I understand how important this fledgling research is to everyone. It is great that such research can exist in such tough financial times.

http://www.gene2gene.com/P53.h... , Â stem cellÂ Â DR: Verma, You did it on 2002)Go take a look! Not finish yet!I have not touch,Dock7, AChE,Cocane, AP4-24H11 ,mRNA,Ag85B,cryptdin-2, ,DPH oxidase ,Crohn's disease !Eat beef is a major reason for Japan woman's breast canter and stomach cancer for me!I got PhD. on Molecular Biology with Dr. J. Ito,at U . of Arizona, Tucson,27 years ago!Â Â I work with Dr,Bernard Roizmens on HSV-1 vaccine 28 years ago at U of Chicago!Â Michael Shih/creator ofÂ http://www.biocarta.comÂ 2002,I left BiocartaÂ toÂ work at ITRI Research Institute at Taiwan,Â Â Early Oct My mother pass away at San Diego, End of Oct,Â End of Oct,I participatedÂ running exercise at ITRI, I fall down, I saw myÂ mother, She told me " It is not the time for you to come here,Â go back!" I also saw my brother in law, two uncles, andÂ Â grandma! Few days later, I was moved to major hospital at Taipei!One night, IÂ wakedÂ up, and knell down against the window,my wife ask me "What you doing?" I told her, "I saw Jesus

http://www.gene2gene.com/P53.h... , Â stem cellÂ Â DR: Verma, You did it on 2002)Go take a look! Not finish yet!I have not touch,Dock7, AChE,Cocane, AP4-24H11 ,mRNA,Ag85B,cryptdin-2, ,DPH oxidase ,Crohn's disease !Eat beef is a major reason for Japan woman's breast canter and stomach cancer for me!I got PhD. on Molecular Biology with Dr. J. Ito,at U . of Arizona, Tucson,27 years ago!Â Â I work with Dr,Bernard Roizmens on HSV-1 vaccine 28 years ago at U of Chicago!Â Michael Shih/creator ofÂ http://www.biocarta.comÂ 2002,I left BiocartaÂ toÂ work at ITRI Research Institute at Taiwan,Â Â Early Oct My mother pass away at San Diego, End of Oct,Â End of Oct,I participatedÂ running exercise at ITRI, I fall down, I saw myÂ mother, She told me " It is not the time for you to come here,Â go back!" I also saw my brother in law, two uncles, andÂ Â grandma! Few days later, I was moved to major hospital at Taipei!One night, IÂ wakedÂ up, and knell down against the window,my wife ask me "What you doing?" I told her, "I saw Jesus

http://www.gene2gene.com/P53.h... , Â stem cellÂ Â DR: Verma, You did it on 2002)Go take a look! Not finish yet!I have not touch,Dock7, AChE,Cocane, AP4-24H11 ,mRNA,Ag85B,cryptdin-2, ,DPH oxidase ,Crohn's disease !Eat beef is a major reason for Japan woman's breast canter and stomach cancer for me!I got PhD. on Molecular Biology with Dr. J. Ito,at U . of Arizona, Tucson,27 years ago!Â Â I work with Dr,Bernard Roizmens on HSV-1 vaccine 28 years ago at U of Chicago!Â Michael Shih/creator ofÂ http://www.biocarta.comÂ 2002,I left BiocartaÂ toÂ work at ITRI Research Institute at Taiwan,Â Â Early Oct My mother pass away at San Diego, End of Oct,Â End of Oct,I participatedÂ running exercise at ITRI, I fall down, I saw myÂ mother, She told me " It is not the time for you to come here,Â go back!" I also saw my brother in law, two uncles, andÂ Â grandma! Few days later, I was moved to major hospital at Taipei!One night, IÂ wakedÂ up, and knell down against the window,my wife ask me "What you doing?" I told her, "I saw Jesus